pull down to refresh
187 sats \ 5 replies \ @Scoresby OP 24 Jul \ parent \ on: Scenes from the frontier of Bitcoin Treasury Companies bitcoin
But this gets at the conversation I was having with @kepford (#1050253) and @justin_shocknet (#1050277) the other day.
If I understood Justin correctly, he sees free banks as the peers that make up the p2p bitcoin network and the trust model largely remains the same (because remains censorship resistant by transcending geography).
Whereas I think kepford sees a needed cultural change to where people do see custody of assets as an exception to the rule.
(hopefully, I've done justice to their respective viewpoints)
How does the trust model for Bitcoin change if the masses don't self-custody?
I agree with @ek. I'm describing the world as I see it. Not as I want it to be. Most people are lazy and not motivated to care about custody. Tech can't solve that. But their custodians can exchange with peer banks. In that way it is peer to peer. The system is still more secure and open than what we have now. I call that a win, not to mention the supply cap.
reply
Thanks for the refocus on net-postives. I agree that a world of many independent custodians is better than what we have now.
reply
reply
This is the reality check I think I often need.
reply
Yep basically, though it might even be more secure this way than if everyone self-custodied.
A little meat left on the bone aligns the incumbant 5th column against the legacy system.
Bitcoin is an incentive operation first and foremost, the technology is just a means to that end.
reply